When will this shit end?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

But if the majority of people who attend these places are young, fit and healthy people who are happy to take the associated risks knowing they are unlikely to suffer any real effects (long COVID issues aside for the moment), then wouldn’t it allow the spread without any real impact to hospitals and death tolls, whilst at the same time somewhat protecting the economy and jobs?

one of the problems is that infections don't stay within just young people. If it did then we wouldn't be having the surge now (which started in youngsters but has now spread across).

Specifically with a lockdown the idea is to break the chain of infection, and that's quickest-done with the lowest mixing possible.

[swede]

18 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

At moment I am both agreeing with all sides of the argument and at the same time disagreeing with all sides of the argument. Glad I'm not in charge.

Same here, its quite hard on the old noggin !!

[squirrelarmy]

It’s really not that bad having to cut down physical social interaction for a short period of time. 
 

We have the internet so there’s no reason for conversations to stop with anyone. As long as you can have a support bubble, not being able to go to the pub for a short period of time isn’t the end of the world. 

[Havors]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

one of the problems is that infections don't stay within just young people. If it did then we wouldn't be having the surge now (which started in youngsters but has now spread across).

Specifically with a lockdown the idea is to break the chain of infection, and that's quickest-done with the lowest mixing possible.

That idea he talks about was recommended by countless experts from the likes of oxford uni etc in an open letter to the government that they dismissed without any thought.

I would imagine its a hell of a lot easier to shield the old and vulnerable than impose a myriad of restrictions and rules on people they don't understand and potential ruin hundreds of thousands of lives.... But they didn't even entertain it for a second.

It's a combination of decisions being completely political now and not based on science and them having so many fingers in the pie they want to keep milking the public money for themselves. 

 

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

It’s really not that bad having to cut down physical social interaction for a short period of time. 
 

We have the internet so there’s no reason for conversations to stop with anyone. As long as you can have a support bubble, not being able to go to the pub for a short period of time isn’t the end of the world. 

Unless you own/work in a pub of course. 

[JoeyT]

Just now, squirrelarmy said:

It’s really not that bad having to cut down physical social interaction for a short period of time. 

We have the internet so there’s no reason for conversations to stop with anyone. As long as you can have a support bubble, not being able to go to the pub for a short period of time isn’t the end of the world. 

The issue at play here isn't the pub itself closing but the financial support for those affected by it's closure.

[Wellyboot]

4 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

not being able to go to the pub for a short period of time isn’t the end of the world. 

who are you and what have you done with squirrel?!?!? 

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

It’s really not that bad having to cut down physical social interaction for a short period of time. 
 

We have the internet so there’s no reason for conversations to stop with anyone. As long as you can have a support bubble, not being able to go to the pub for a short period of time isn’t the end of the world. 

Speak for yourself. 

[JoeyT]

What are everyone views on gyms having to close in the highest tier?

Personally I think anything which increases both physical & mental well being should be allowed to remain open in a covid secure way.

[squirrelarmy]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Speak for yourself. 

I’m a very social person and I enjoy a drink but I know measures have to be taken to reduce the spread of the virus. 
 

Going into tier 2 isn’t the end of the world that you seem to think that it is.

Some of us have been living with these restrictions for months now and we have carried on to the best that we can. 
 

There are people on this forum who haven’t been able to see their significant others properly since March.
 

Just have to live with the temporary sacrifices for the greater good of the country and hopefully we’ll get through it.  

[Homer]

4 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

What are everyone views on gyms having to close in the highest tier?

Personally I think anything which increases both physical & mental well being should be allowed to remain open in a covid secure way.

I'll go jogging and do weights and workouts at home (like I did during lockdown). Plus play football.

[nikkic]

9 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

What are everyone views on gyms having to close in the highest tier?

Personally I think anything which increases both physical & mental well being should be allowed to remain open in a covid secure way.

They should 100% remain open. 
 

There is data to show the number of infections in gyms since they reopened is minuscule, can’t remember exactly but it’s something like 76 cases in 20 million visits. 
 

It’s of paramount importance they stay open for physical and mental well-being. 

[zahidf]

Ireland has similar problems to us it seems

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

11 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I’m a very social person and I enjoy a drink but I know measures have to be taken to reduce the spread of the virus. 
 

Going into tier 2 isn’t the end of the world that you seem to think that it is.

Some of us have been living with these restrictions for months now and we have carried on to the best that we can. 
 

There are people on this forum who haven’t been able to see their significant others properly since March.
 

Just have to live with the temporary sacrifices for the greater good of the country and hopefully we’ll get through it.  

I am too, but even still, literally no one is asking to be able to go to the pub and party every weekend. Some of us rely on a core group of loved ones to support our mental states. 

[Ozanne]

16 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I’m a very social person and I enjoy a drink but I know measures have to be taken to reduce the spread of the virus. 
 

Going into tier 2 isn’t the end of the world that you seem to think that it is.

Some of us have been living with these restrictions for months now and we have carried on to the best that we can. 
 

There are people on this forum who haven’t been able to see their significant others properly since March.
 

Just have to live with the temporary sacrifices for the greater good of the country and hopefully we’ll get through it.  

Yeah I agree. Some people have gone through extraordinary circumstance and managed to handle it. You really see how people are when we are in a crises like this. It really is about sacrifices for the greater good, which if it means socialising for a bit more is limited then it needs to be done. 

[danmarks]

All this protect the old qnd vulnerable and let everyone else make their own judgements just comes across as it wont affect me so let other people lose their lifestyle so i can carry on doing what i want. 

If it was reversed and only old and vulnerable could gp out (no risks from others) would people be so keen?

[DeanoL]

 

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

As far as I could see the mixing of households in pubs wasn't enforced in Manchester...will it be in London, don't imagine so?

 

2 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Should add that legally you can do any of it except meet in groups bigger than six I think. The rest is guidelines so not legally enforceable? (could be wrong!)

I think this is the real question to be honest and the answer seems to be complicated. The rules absolutely are enforceable now, which is sort of the big difference between the Tier 2 now and the Manchester restrictions. Specifically the current regulations allow for fixed penalty notices of up to £6400 for those breaking the rules, and include this important bit:

Quote

(3) If an offence under this regulation committed by a body corporate is proved—

(a)to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body corporate, or

(b)to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,

the officer (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be prosecuted, proceeded against and punished accordingly.

This is where it gets scary for business owners, as if they are "neglectful" in checking if everyone turning up is from the same household, they're potentially liable. And with the fixed penalty system they could be looking at fines of £6400 per offence.

So what did the previous regulations say? They're all split out by area of lockdown so I've only looked at the North of England ones for the sake of this investigation.

First thing to note is there is no fixed penalty system - just summary conviction by a fine, which certainly slows down and would vastly reduce the level of enforcement. But here's where it gets weird. The bit about corporate neglect wasn't in the original 5 August regs, it was added in on 15 August but then removed again on 24 September, with the regulations being revoked on 14 October as we entered the new tier system.

So while I would say the rules haven't actually changed, they're a lot more threatening now, especially to businesses owners. So I can see why the "London is in tier 2 and it's now big deal" argument is happening. Manchester wasn't really in tier 2 since August, it was in something close to it but not quite so worrysome to business owners.

It's also possible that as the previous regulations only applied to certain areas, enforcement decisions could be made locally by those areas, whereas now these are national regulations, there may be a push for enforcement to be consistent everywhere.

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I am too, but even still, literally no one is asking to be able to go to the pub and party every weekend. Some of us rely on a core group of loved ones to support our mental states. 

There’s this wonderful invention called the internet. It enables you to keep in contact with those you care about. 
 

Video calls aren’t the same as physical contact but it’s the next best thing in these challenging times. 

[danmarks]

Also. When youre 70 plus six months is not a small chunk of the remainder of your life. If youre 19-20 , you've got many many more 6 months when this has run its course to live life to the full.

[priest17]

 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

There’s this wonderful invention called the internet. It enables you to keep in contact with those you care about. 
 

Video calls aren’t the same as physical contact but it’s the next best thing in these challenging times. 

Yes, exactly. And that’s why I’ve moved in with my girlfriend in Essex for the foreseeable future. All of my other friends and loved ones I’m happy to have video calls with, but I can’t not have a hug from my other half, potentially ever again if the restrictions become permanent. 

[eFestivals]

looks like the govt is buying off northern opposition to tier 3 and going to shaft Burnham good and proper.

[zahidf]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Yes, exactly. And that’s why I’ve moved in with my girlfriend in Essex for the foreseeable future. All of my other friends and loved ones I’m happy to have video calls with, but I can’t not have a hug from my other half, potentially ever again if the restrictions become permanent. 

They won't be permanent

[zahidf]

Just now, eFestivals said:

looks like the govt is buying off northern opposition to tier 3 and going to shaft Burnham good and proper.

Isn't more money what he wanted?

[DeanoL]

 

59 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well, pubs can hardly stay open if legally have to shut, no matter what. Burnham is mainly just arguing for the same payments to businesses and workers who have have to close and stop work as were in the original furlough scheme.

67% of minimum wage is not enough to live on.

This seems like such a simple fix to me - set a floor for the payouts so those on minimum wage get up to say 90% of their minimum wage (lets broadly say 10% on work expenses is reasonable). Everyone else gets the 67%. It's not a complete fix, everyone's situation is different, but it broadly fixes the major problem.

 

42 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

No that wasn’t my point, sorry! I know that Burnham’s main aim is more funding for business and people up in the North. Khan seems to want to try to control the spread and generally seems to be doing pretty well. It seems like someone has an issue with Khan because they can’t socialise. 

I sort of like the style of what he's doing but equally find it a bit stomach turning? It's like there's a train hurtling towards a bunch of people on the tracks, and Burnham is refusing to move them off the tracks until the government guarantee to provide them with income support. It's a big, ballsy move but part of me also doesn't feel it's right for him to gamble with people's lives to make that move. Even though I entirely support the outcome (more funding/job protection) he's trying to get to.